Some People Need Educating!

[Les Henson]

From the Land Rover Chronicles website:-

Well theres not much mods one can slap on a series

http://lrchroniclepub.proboards29.com/inde...read=1082915835

Les

[OrbitalPear]

Theres not much standard on most series.

What a numpty.

[JSG]

This one's not quite standard.

[jeremy996]

Mr Henson's quote was lovely.

The replies on Chronicals were also quite fun - I think the poster's education has started in earnest!

[estwdjhn]

Don't like to say this, but the vehicle shown above, while probably a neat enough job, is a ringer.

Its claiming tax exemption as a Series II, but is legally a Rangerover... don't do it.

Register it legally as a rangerover.... and pay the tax.

(or buy a propper landy on propper springs )

DVLA are getting quite hot at crushing these things now when they catch up with them...

[minivin]

it's not quite a "ringer", the DVLA uses a system of allocating "score points" for sub assemblies within a vehicles construction, points are given for original chassis, brakes, engine, transmission et cetera. As long as you score enough points to sattisfy their criteria then all is well, if you don't then it's SVA time and new registration et cetera

[estwdjhn]

Yes, you are correct.

However, the identity stays with the chasis, and having enough points worth of bits.

I can see there, coil springs, RR axles, no idea about engine and box, and if its on coils, then its rather likly not to be the original chasis.

The body panels do not count for anything.

I suspect that the chassis is a cut down RR, in which case there are enough bits to claim its a RR to DVLA.

Point proven M'lord

[JSG]

Don't like to say this, but the vehicle shown above, while probably a neat enough job, is a ringer.

Its claiming tax exemption as a Series II, but is legally a Rangerover... don't do it.

Register it legally as a rangerover.... and pay the tax.

(or buy a propper landy on propper springs )

DVLA are getting quite hot at crushing these things now when they catch up with them...

It's not a ringer by any means. But I guess you're clever enough to know everything just from looking at a picture - any chance of telling me next week's winning lottery numbers ?

It's actually on a 88" Series IIA chassis if you're interested in the facts.

[Top90]

I nearly bought a series 2 like you are suggesting John.

Cut down RR chassis = 0 points.

RR axles and springs = 0 points.

V8 and RR Box = 0 points.

Power steering = 0 points.

Nice series bodywork, though

Richard

Edited to add: I'm not commenting on yours JSG.

[JSG]

I can see there, coil springs, RR axles, no idea about engine and box, and if its on coils, then its rather likly not to be the original chasis.

I suspect that the chassis is a cut down RR, in which case there are enough bits to claim its a RR to DVLA.

Point proven M'lord

It's well known to many of the regulars on here as the last two owners plus possibly the builder have been regulars on here.

It's a Series IIA with a 'new' replacement Designa 88" coil sprung chassis, 90 axles and running gear with original Series IIA gearbox and transfer case. The engine is Range Rover although this is not believed to have been fitted when the chassis was new as the mounts aren't for a V8.

When I spoke to the DVLA before buying it they said they were happy with the status as it was built before the regs were tightened up and the chassis at the time counted as original due to it being sold as a 88" chassis for a Series II.

To be honest saving the £170 on tax doesn't bother me - I just like the look of it.

[landi41]

It's not a ringer by any means. But I guess you're clever enough to know everything just from looking at a picture - any chance of telling me next week's winning lottery numbers ?

It's actually on a 88" Series IIA chassis if you're interested in the facts.

Ya me too i want to hear those winning numbers......

Bye the way newbie those who think they know it all really tiddle off we guys who do :)

[Top90]

JSG, any idea when the regs were tightened up, and does it now include designa chassis?

Cheers

Richard

[landi41]

Jeez, if you edit a post with a quote included you loose the quote box........... as i did......... above.............

[JSG]

JSG, any idea when the regs were tightened up, and does it now include designa chassis?

Cheers

Richard

From memory it was about 5 years or so ago. A standard replacement chassis (ie leafs) is no problem and the chap I spoke to said that if it was a new coil sprung chassis you were in a 'grey area' as the chassis is non-standard - he said it may well be ok as the chassis is classed as a replacement 88" on their system but the fact that it was using coils made things less clear.

He went on to say that it was cut down RR and Defender chassis that the rules were designed to clamp down on.

[estwdjhn]

Ok, I take back some of what I said.

Its not a RangeRover chassis, (I only said "suspect it is" anyway),

I don't know what the state of play was 5 years ago, DVLA now clearly state that the chassis must be to the "Original manufactuers specification" and that means that Designas coilers are out, as they plainly are not. Its not even a certain that a 88" SIII replacement chassis is acceptable on a SII, as there are a number of differences, especially on the earlier ones (like this was, B plate is about 1964 IIRC)

(From DVLA website)

In these cases the vehicle components used from the original vehicle will be given a numerical value and, in order to retain the original registration mark the vehicle must score eight or more points.

If less than eight points are scored or a second-hand or modified chassis or altered monocoque bodyshell is used an ESVA/SVA/MSVA certificate will be required to register the vehicle and a 'Q' prefix registration number will be allocated.

The following values will be allocated to the major components used:

Points Chassis/body shell (body and chassis as one unit - monocoque)* (original or new) = 5

Suspension = 2

Axles = 2

Transmission = 2

Steering Assembly = 2

Engine = 1

*Direct replacement from the manufactures

NB. Where there is evidence that two vehicles have been welded together to form one (i.e. 'Cut and Shut') a 'Q' mark will be allocated. ESVA/SVA/MSVA will be required.

So to be honest I would say now we are on dodgy ground replacing with a mashland or richards standard chassis, I wouldn't like to be DVLA's test case... (All mine are still on their originals, plus a big stack of welded in patches, either fitted or overdue for fitting... )

JSG, Please note this is very much NOT a personal attack, nor do I wish you any personal ill-will. I didn't even know it was your vehicle, as opposed to one you merely had a picture of.

Your vehicle may well be perfectly legit because of when it was built, but there are an awfull lot of people out now building vehicles like this, and claiming fraudilent registrations. I am concerned that this means a lot of misinformation is floating around,

e.g. a lot of people claim their RR hybids to be SII because of the bodypannels being SII, which its not counted by DVLA for anything.

I think it was more like 10 years ago now the rules changed, but wouldn't like to have to bet on it...

While I may be new to this particular forum, I do happen to have spend a certain amount of time working on landrovers,

and while I don't claim to know much about some aspects of Series truck... (only thing I know about gearboxes for example, is where they fit in the chassis, and which levers to move when...) I think I am reasonably well up on registration issues, having read a little about them, including all I can find that DVLA have to say on the matter, and having got involved with some complex registration issues relating to some of my own vehicles. (E.g. I am currently working on getting back the registration of my 88" SII, which happens to be the oldest surving SII anyone knows about, being built on what I belive to have been about the third day of production.)

[JSG]

JSG, Please note this is very much NOT a personal attack, nor do I wish you any personal ill-will. I didn't even know it was your vehicle, as opposed to one you merely had a picture of.

Your vehicle may well be perfectly legit because of when it was built, but there are an awfull lot of people out now building vehicles like this, and claiming fraudilent registrations.

No worries - no offence taken.

It's a total minefield at the moment. My personal view point is that a new replacement chassis should give full points as I believe it's better to have a new galvanised chassis on an old truck than a patched up one - but as you say it could be that this is not to be acceptable.

The DVLA were helpfull when I spoke to them and confirmed that my truck was listed by them as having the correct spec and had been built some time before the rules were tightened.

One point though - how do you think they would view a new replacement rear quarter chassis ?

[estwdjhn]

how do you think they would view a new replacement rear quarter chassis ?

To be honest, I think that there you have summed up the problem.

This is my 1958 SII.

as you can see, its in a bad way, and would normally be overdue for a re-chassis.

As it appears to be the oldest surivor, I'm not going down that road, but will repair whats left of that chassis.

By the time I have finished, it will probably only have 40% original metal, and 60% new sections I have welded in.

The question that springs to mind is what if I replaced all barring the chassis no area? where would I be then? what the difference between that and putting a patch an inch square on a chassis?

As stated on the DVLA website, if you use a 'second hand' chassis half for the patch, you are into a 'Q' plate zone.

But if its new metal, you can do what you like.

In other words, a designa chassis is OK, if you weld it to a small bit of the orignal, and call it a repair, but not if its a replacement, bzare as that ruling is...

I don't personally think a new chassis is any better than a decently repaired old one, its just that doing decent repairs tends to be so much work you might as well replace.

[landi41]

Interesting discussion............. If British rules were applied in Canada there would be very few Series on the roads over here, many of ours are rebuilt Chinese menu style; a bit from column A. a bit from B. and so on........

[JSG]

Exactly my concern Dave - I can see classics dissappearing over here as they can't be repaired. The rules were aimed at stopping ringing of vehicles I believe but seem to have an impact for those wishing to keep their vehicles running. I would rather see a Series brought back to life by the use of donor parts from other vehicles than see it scrapped - but it seems to be getting harder to achieve.

Mind you in the case of a 1958 SII I'd like to see as much of the original kept as possible.

[landyliam]

makes interesting reading this, my friend just bought a series3 109 2.25 petrol (well thats what it says on the tax book) but it's a rangy cut down 88" chassis with all the rangy axles, steering, engine & gearbox, a defender front and the only series bits are the doors, window and back tub. Best of all it is a 1976 so it's not even tax free!

so he's now looking for a scrap range rover, preferably pre 73

[Les Henson]

I don't think that replacing a leaf sprung chassis with a coil sprung one should make any difference as you are not altering the shape of the chassis as such, but the suspension of the vehicle. Its quite common to bolt or weld on brackets to chassis' to add other items (standard or not) , such as twin shocks (no points problem), some types of winch (again no points problem). Changing the suspension type of your vehicle should be (within the law) a matter between you and your insurance company.

Les.

[estwdjhn]

Although I personally wouldn't do it, welding coils on is Ok.

A Designa chassis is not to the original manufactures specifiaction, and as such it is not now legal to fit one without going though a SVA and 'Q' plate.

If the chassis came out of a RR or similar, then it is either a 'cut and shut' or a RR, in the eyes of DVLA.

Both of them do not qualify for keeping the original SII/SIII number.

At the end of the day, why not buy a V8 90, it would be less work. Or simply fit a good set of leaf springs...

IMHO standard leaf sprung vehicles often outperform the most fancy coil setups, and with half the fuss.

(And thats from a good deal of watching...). Belive it or not, one of the best machines I have ever seen ofroad was a 1965ish austin gypsy ambulance, totally unmodified. It traveled easily though a steeply sloping mudbath that left several tricked up 90s on agressive tyres well bogged(inc some TC fitted ones) and barely even spun its wheels.

Notice LRW best 4x4 this year is a Santra thats basically and uprated SIII...

(Yes I know that does put me out on a limb, but IMHO that is a fair assesment)

[02GF74]

Although I personally wouldn't do it, welding coils on is Ok.

I'm not 100% convinced it is. I read somewhere that the series chasis is made differently to the coil sprung (not talking about spring mounts etc but the box sections) and it wasn't designed to take the forces of coils. In short, welding cooily bits to series is not the way to do it but fit a shortened RR or 90 chasis. I'd be interested to hear whatthe after market chasis makers sya on this - do they use coil type chasis with series outriggers?

re: ringing; Also on one of the govenrment websites currently it is mentioned that if the chasis is modified from its original type then it is considered different so no tax exemption. i.e. going from leafs to coils clearly is not the original form.

[landi41]

"Or simply fit a good set of leaf springs...

IMHO standard leaf sprung vehicles often outperform the most fancy coil setups, and with half the fuss.

(And thats from a good deal of watching...). "

You know i'd have to go along with that............ perhaps not "outperform" but every bit as good in most typical off-road situations.

They all get stuck sooner or later, coils just extend the "time to winch" a little bit

[estwdjhn]

(estwdjhn @ Aug 24 2005, 08:43 AM)

Although I personally wouldn't do it, welding coils on is Ok.

I'm not 100% convinced it is. I read somewhere that the series chasis is made differently to the coil sprung (not talking about spring mounts etc but the box sections) and it wasn't designed to take the forces of coils. In short, welding cooily bits to series is not the way to do it but fit a shortened RR or 90 chasis. I'd be interested to hear whatthe after market chasis makers sya on this - do they use coil type chasis with series outriggers?

I agree, and serveral people have told me this. My comment above was merely about the legality of the issue, not its practicalilty.

As for the A/M chassis lot, they certainly don't mention the legal issues associated with fitting one of their chassis. I personally find this really irritating, there are a lot of ilegal vehicles out there, simply because of their negilegence.... Sadly however there is no way I know of to force them to play ball on the legal issues, and they themselfs are not doing anything against the law, merely morally wrong.